This project is not in the best interests of the people of NSW. The small number of jobs and the royalties the government receives are short sighted benefits.

The longer term benefits of ending mining here are instead farming, bushland and authentic Australian local communities. Where better to raise children? Protect our wildlife? Age with dignity?

We need farmland and agriculture more than we need any more coal mines or csg industries. We have cleaner, greener alternatives that do not necessitate the destruction of farmland but the only alternative we have for our farmland is to import what the land can no longer produce. This is unsustainable and threatens our food security.

I cannot believe our government will allow this beautiful place to be destroyed to make another country rich. Shame on you all for destroying what does not belong to you

the corrupt practices surrounding a lot of the granting of licences alarms me
- we have plenty of capacity for coal already
- our reliable farming land is limited

The coal industry is in terminal decline. Coal kills. Coal mining is responsible for causing irreparable damage to landscapes, human health and the whole environment. The development of any new coal mines must be stopped. To consider mining for coal in an area like the Bylong Valley is doubly outrageous.
This application must be disallowed.

1. The predicted long-term impacts on prime agricultural land and water systems in the Bylong Valley are unacceptable and will not be mitigated through proposed offsets and rehabilitation. The renowned Tarwyn Park natural sequence farming processes will be destroyed.

2. A significant area of prime agricultural land will be destroyed: the mine footprint will disturb 2,875 hectares (ha) of land including 440 ha of Bioregional Significant Agricultural Land (BSAL), 260 ha being destroyed in open cut, plus 700 ha of mapped Critical Equine Industry Cluster land. The proposal to replace BSAL at another location is untested and high risk.

3. Impacts on groundwater and surface water will be significant. The highly connected alluvial aquifer system within the stressed Bylong River catchment will have predicted peak losses of up to 295 million litres per year (ML/yr). Loss of base flows to the Bylong River is predicted to be 918 ML/yr. The mine proposes to use up to 1,942 ML/yr which is over 75% of the annual rainfall recharge. The river system is over allocated and local farmers will lose important water supply.

4. The mine disturbance area has very high biodiversity values that will not be mitigated through the proposed offset arrangements. Nationally endangered species recorded in the area include the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, New Holland Mouse, Regent Honeyeater and Spotted-tailed Quoll. Three entirely new plant species were recorded. A significant area of critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland will be destroyed along with habitat for 17 threatened birds and 7 threatened plants.

5. The area has Aboriginal cultural heritage significance: 239 sites were recorded in the study area with 25 regarded as being of high local or regional significance (including an ochre quarry, grinding grooves and rock shelters); 144 sites have been identified at risk from mine impacts with 102 within the open cut area.

6. Important European heritage, including the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong Public School and a number of historic homesteads and farm buildings will be destroyed in the open-cut. The social impacts on the Bylong community have already been devastating.

Well here we go again ! How can we repetitiously put mining projects before farming, environment and community devastation. After all, surely this mining project should be shelved after the notorious Eddie Obeids' initial involvement
How can we in our right minds support an overseas company to come in and destroy good farming land for quick immediate gain, royalties to our government , at the expense of what has to be something far more sustainable and important in the long run.

It is disgraceful that we continue along this path, without having done the necessary scientific studies to negate any negative impacts to the underground water resources in particular, never mind the long term impacts to the immediate community.
Instead of continuing with this quick gain at any expense drive...it is definitely time to consider backing our agricultural industries, something China is happy to support and something which in the long term is essential to Asia & world food production and an industry which obviously is totally reliant on water...something we have been negligent to protect and respect as one of the most valuable commodities of all times.
In such an arid country as ours, to completely disregard the significant and revealing and enlightening work such as that endured and painstakingly carried out by Peter Andrews in the Bylong Valley, work which has been acknowledged far and wide as being ground breaking, is ignorant and at best negligent. For his work indicates the vital role of water and how it can transform & sustain a landscape instead of undermining it !
Again this is a valley of extreme beauty and it has become evident again that what is happening is negating the opportunities for tourism and destroying the lives of another community and the lives of hard working and committed farmers to pursue any agricultural endeavours.
Okay big royalties, but at what cost ultimately !!

I wish to express my concerns re the Bylong Coal Project
Water issues are a major concern... The volume of water required for the mine is not sustainable... The Bylong river catchment is already stressed by present allocations and the mine proposes to use 1942 ml/yr
The loss of prime agricultural land is unacceptable..mine footprint being 2,875 hect NSW should be protecting the prime agricultural land
Tarwyn Park has been extremely important in demonstrating to land owners how the land can be managed more effectively
Grassy box gum woodland will be destroyed Large stands of grassy box woodland has been destroyed by mining in close geographical areas ,

Bylong Coal Project: SSD 14_6367

I strongly object to the opening of a greenfield coal mine in the pristine and highly fertile Bylong Valley.

It makes no sense to start coal mining in this new region at a time when world demand for coal is declining (despite contrary claims made by the International Energy Agency). Kepco can more easily (and probably at less cost) meet its coal security needs by purchasing one of the established mines in the nearby Hunter Valley that have recently been closed or put into care and maintenance. There is no need to extend the pollution associated with coal mines into this highly productive and highly scenic area.

I have worked in tourism around all of Australia for over 30 years and confirm the Sydney Morning Herald's judgement that the Bylong Valley is one of Australia's top ten scenic drives. It is a stunningly beautiful valley. The EIS does not even mention the negative impact of the mine on the tourism, actual and potential, of the Bylong Valley.

I clearly remember a state election where Barry O'Farrell promised to protect high value agriculture. The Bylong Valley is a prime example of where (yet again) an election promise has not been upheld. The Gateway Process demonstrated this project only met one of twelve criteria for an acceptable mine, but that did not stop the project. I now understand that this EIS has failed to address some of the issues raised in the Gateway process, viz: cease to pump levels and issues re agricultural land. How come the EIS was allowed to go on exhibition without at least addressing all the issues raised in the Gateway process? This is just another demonstration to the general community that all these so called safeguards and conditions placed on mines are basically meaningless.

I understand there are a number of experts giving detailed submissions on the many flaws of the EiS. I can only give a personal perspective from my own observations of the negative impacts that already this project has had on the community and lives of people in the Bylong Valley.

The EiS makes light of the social impact of the mine. The project already has had negative impacts. Kepco land buyouts mean the community is no longer large enough to continue to run its highly successful and much loved annual Mouse Races, a unique rural Australian event that over its 25 years has managed to raise over $500,000 for its community.

Where previously there were about 8 agricultural enterprises, some quite large and employing a number of people, there is now only one land manager. Where in the EIS is there an adequate accounting of the loss of this rural employment? Fewer people working/managing the land has resulted in a substantial increase in feral animals, wild dogs in particular. I know of one land owner who has had to change the stocking of his land from sheep to cattle because of this.

Depopulation has caused the school to close, so there is the loss of another job. Depopulation has had negative impact on the local rural fire brigade - another negative impact not mentioned in the EIS.

Early buyout of land by Kepco has resulted in inadequate mapping of BSAL land. Bylong Station has historically (over 120 years) been an important horse breeding property but was not included in the mapping because of Kepco's purchase. I find it amazing that simple ownership immediately changes the agricultural potential of the land!

Tarwyn Park is of major significance in terms of landscape management. Natural Sequence Farming has revolutionised water management within the landscape, yet this showpiece and home of NSF will be negatively impacted by an open cut coal mine 300m from the boundary. The mine will result in 1-1.5m drawdown of groundwater levels. NSF is all about raising the level of the groundwater so claims that Tarwyn Park will be unaffected are totally unbelievable.

I question the all the figures presented in the economic section, given the one about the expected corporate taxes that will flow is so unbelievable. Recent press has highlighted how well international corporations manage to dodge their tax liabilities to Australia. Why would Kepco be any different? especially given it is selling to the coal to itself - an accountant's dream situation! Nor could I see any real accounting of the loss of jobs and social (including mental health) and environmental costs - and , oh, what about health costs? The health cost of coal is now well documented, and most recently in the nearby Hunter Valley.

I will not go into details abut points that others will be making:
* Long-term impacts on prime agricultural land and water systems in the Bylong Valley are unacceptable and will not be mitigated through proposed offsets and rehabilitation
* A significant area of prime agricultural land will be destroyed and it is difficult to believe BSAL land can easily be reproduced. Farmers would have done that themselves if it was so easy!
* The river system is over allocated and local farmers will lose important water supply as impacts on groundwater and surface water will be significant.
* The biodiversity impacts are unacceptable. I do not understand why the mining industry can continually decrease the already minute percentage of remaining critically endangered Grassy Box Gum Woodland. This is unacceptable. Why is there no cumulative accounting of the yearly decimation of this ecological community? For years now, once or more a year I write a submission objecting to further clearing of this EEC, but is still goes on.
* Over half the identified Aboriginal cultural heritage sites will be negatively impacted.
* Important European heritage, including the Catholic Church Cemetery, Upper Bylong Public School and a number of historic homesteads and farm buildings will be destroyed in the open cut.

The Bylong Coal Project should not go ahead.

The proposal has failed to show that the water supply into the already affected Hunter River system will not result in a part or total destruction of the Hunter River System. This is a gamble not worth consideration..
As a farmer from Rylstone the loss of prime agricultural land is not acceptable.
The loss of heritage, churches, farm homesteads, schools, is totally unthinkable.
The loss of tourism from the coast through to Mudgee, Rylstone etc is not acceptable.
Most importantly, the national loss of income from the arrangements surrounding this mine are an insult to our community and nation,
It is very unlikely the land will be usable after the mining for many many generations. This is unacceptable,.
The Government should take no pleasure in the fact that some farmers have "sold out", it is a problem for the Government that the policy allows for total sale to overseas companies (countries) to buy our land and destroy it for short term gain and overseas to profit at our expense.
This area is so close to Sydney. It is a tourist destination with long term gains NOT SHORT TERM GAIN WITH LONG TERM PAIN.
The Government needs to behold to a policy of looking after our people, not selling them out for short term gain.
Finally, we loose our coal which could be held for the future, what? A future which may show that not only can coal provide a good source of energy, but a "cleaned up" way of doing it.
SHORT TERM GAIN FOR LONG TERM PAIN AND NATIONAL LOSS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT BEST FOR AUSTRALIA.
I ask that no matter what all the so called investigations etc turn up to support this proposal THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT OUR HERITAGE AND FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE MADE US IN THE PAST.